The one thing the Argentines never under estimated was the RN SSN’s, what they under estimated was the British being prepared to go to war over islands that most in this country knew nothing about and cared even less about. The Argentine commander of submarines was directly asked whether his boats could counter RN SSN’s in a slightly earlier crises and his negative response was an important reason for them not risking a war at that point. Lets face it, if the government had been in a position to get a couple of companies of infantry down there in a hurry it would probably have been enough to deter the invasion as it would have signalled that we were prepared to fight.

The RAN hardly has the manpower or budget for three Aegis Destroyers. Let alone a Super Carrier the size of the CVF or Nimtz Class.

I quite agree, my comment was aimed more at the suggestion of a country buying or leasing an ex-USN CVN, and even if the USN gave them away for free (perhaps as a way of keeping the hulls active to relieve pressure on USN carriers, the basic idea behind that suggestion of transferring JFK to NATO) they’d still be prohibitively expensive for any other navy. If the RAN want maritime air power then a F35B on their new LHD’s is the only realistic choice. The RN would almost certainly see a far heavier drain on resources to try and operate a USN CVN even if they got it for free than they’ll ever have to pay into the CVF program over the life of the vessels.

Ocean wasn’t designed as an aircraft carrier, she was designed as an affordable (read cheap) Commando Helicopter carrier and her deck layout and systems were optimised for the dual purpose of carrying a marine embarked force and keeping costs down, and on the whole she has been pretty successful on both counts. The RN took the not unreasonable view that with three CVL’s they could afford to build a dedicated assault platform. If they really wanted to I’m sure Ocean could be re-fitted to carry fighters, she can already ferry Harriers, but it’d be at the expense of her primary mission as an assault ship, which would render her whole reason for existing as pointless, and why lose a valuable asset to turn her into a much slower and less capable version of an Invincible when the RN still have two perfectly good Invincibles with a third still there for emergencies until they finally decide to either sell her or send her to the breakers? An assault ship is a valuable asset in it’s own right, one of the major problems faced by the RN in 1982 was that Hermes served as a carrier rather than a Commando carrier making the landing forces job an awful lot harder. Since the Ocean’s basic hull was derived from the Invincible hull form many have decided she is just a cheap Invincible with diesels and that is nowhere near the truth, aside from the basic hull there is virtually no similarity with the Invincible class, no more so than between a Leander and Type 22 which share a similar link in basic hull forms. Ultimately there is so much a ship can do in a certain size, the space required to operate Harriers or F35B’s, stores, munitions, engineering support, hangar facilities etc. has to be at the expense of helicopters and their equipment, stores for the embarked force etc. meaning the assault function is heavily restricted for the purpose of carrying fighters. If there is no alternative then it may be Hobsons choice, but it is not the choice you’d make if there was an alternative. There is also a question of basic hull form, the hull demands of a carrier and an assault ship with a floodable dock or even just straight Ro-Ro type decks with side and stern ramps are very different and put very different demands on a designer. Yes, it is possible to do it and make a ship that can carry a squadron of fighters and an embarked marine force and helicopters at the same time and do both jobs well, but not for the price or size of an Ocean or Juan Carlos.

A cynic might say the usual means of avoiding this little problem is to give technology to Israel and stipulate they’re not allowed to sell it on to the countries in question. So France just needs to sell Aster to Israel but make sure Israel knows that on no account must they give it to Taiwan and in 5 minutes them Lafayettes will be fitted with Aster:diablo:

The RN originally accepted a lot of “fitted for but not with” in order to get 12 hulls, then it was cut to 8 and they may end up with 6, a far cry from the famous the navy wanted 6, the treasury offered 4 and they compromised on 8 row over battleships before WW1. Makes me wonder what the RN would have pushed for 10 years ago if they’d known the government would fail to honour their part of the bargain, was a bit naive of the RN ever to swallow that whole cuts now for jam tomorrow BS IMO.

As well as manpower there is the provision of air groups, and they’re anything but cheap, whether CTOL, STOVL, STOBAR or purely rotary. And the LPH/LPD has a reputation as a cheap type based on the fact that most of them are built to commercial methods with economical diesels, lean manning and in many cases very limited C&C and sensor suites. If you put in fleet command facilities and a genuinely front line capable sensor suite, high power engines for high speed manouvering (probably, but not neccessarily gas turbines), build to fully military standards etc. they’re no longer the bargain that their cheaper brothers are. And since the CVF program needs at least some degree of speed and military functionality then a LPHD candidate would be much closer to the USN vessels of this type than an Ocean, and they’re probably not much different in price to the CVF anyway.

Interesting, sorry I can’t help with your request but judging from when the images were produced they can’t have been more than very early stage outline concept proposals, but that’s just my guess. Certainly, in the early stages there was a lot of talk of a vessel design seeming much closer to the Italian Cavour than what became the CVF.

The CVF is certainly about power projection, but it is not a USN CVN and it is not intended to be. The RN can not afford to build or operate carriers in the style of those, whether the CVF is STOVL or CTOL it will lack the logistics infrastructure, naval support assets, air support assets and the financial coffers needed to support a USN style carrier doctrine. We have a saying over here that you can only urinate with the penis you’ve got, and the RN are doing this. Whether the CVF is CTOL or STOVL will not affect the fact they have far less ambitious plans and roles than a CVN, really it is no dumb generalisation to say it really is more like a Invincible or Cavour pumped up on steroids than a CVN. And if you look at RN air ops and what they’ve spoken of in public about the CVN it does actually seem a lot closer to the USMC than the USN. Which is a realistic evaluation of their abilities to afford and support carrier aviation IMO.